A New York appellate court has reversed a Family Court decision that dismissed a father's petition to modify custody arrangements regarding his child. The ruling, issued on November 4, 2026, reinstates the father's request for sole legal and residential custody, emphasizing the importance of a hearing to determine the child's best interests. This decision affects the custody arrangement between Erion Hasko and Amalia Kikalenios, the child's parents, and highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that custody decisions are made with thorough consideration of the child's needs.

The case stems from a divorce judgment dated January 25, 2017, which established joint legal custody of the couple's child, born in 2013. Under the terms of a stipulation of settlement from August 11, 2016, the mother was granted primary residential custody, while the father had joint legal custody. The stipulation required both parents to consult on educational and medical decisions, with the mother retaining final authority over medical matters. However, in 2024, the father filed a petition to modify these custody provisions, claiming a substantial change in circumstances.

In his petition, the father argued that the mother had not been transparent about the child's medical, psychological, and educational needs. He also noted that the child was experiencing widening educational gaps and had been recommended for a more specialized educational setting. Furthermore, the father claimed that ongoing disputes between the parents regarding the child's education had caused emotional distress for the child. The Family Court dismissed the father's petition without a hearing on October 27, 2025, prompting the father to appeal the decision.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of the father, stating that the Family Court had erred by dismissing the petition without conducting a hearing. The court emphasized that custody modifications require a sufficient showing of changed circumstances that necessitate a review of what is in the child's best interests. The ruling stated, "Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth the terms of custody or parental access is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child."

The ruling was made by a panel of judges including Angela G. Iannacci, Lara J. Genovesi, Laurence L. Love, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They noted that the father's allegations warranted a hearing to explore whether the existing custody arrangement continued to serve the child's best interests. The court pointed out that the father's claims about the mother's lack of communication regarding the child's needs, combined with the child's autism diagnosis and the emotional distress caused by parental conflicts, indicated the need for further examination.

The court's decision to reverse the Family Court's dismissal means that the father's petition will be reinstated, and the case will be sent back to the Family Court in Queens County for a hearing. This hearing will allow both parents to present evidence and arguments regarding the child's custody and care. The ruling underscores the importance of thorough judicial review in custody matters, particularly when a child's well-being is at stake.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It reinforces the principle that custody determinations should not be made lightly or without proper hearings. The court's insistence on a full hearing ensures that all factors affecting the child's welfare are considered before any changes to custody arrangements are made. This case may set a precedent for similar custody disputes, emphasizing the necessity of evidentiary hearings when significant changes in circumstances are alleged.

Moving forward, the father and mother will have the opportunity to present their cases in Family Court. The outcome of the upcoming hearing will determine whether the father will gain sole legal and residential custody of the child. As for appeals, the decision made by the Appellate Division can potentially be reviewed by the New York Court of Appeals, should either party seek further legal recourse. However, details about any related cases or future actions were not available in the court filing.